The last (and first) time I blogged, I thought I was taking a semi-clever jab at the whole blogging establishment. But not only did certain other people express the same sentiment, others wrote far more on meaty topics with tons of links in their entries to cool stuff. Instead of being a breath of fresh air, my puny entry became merely a pathetic little gasp of nothingness. Well, I've learned my lesson.
This time I'm going to ruminate on whether the work we're doing in the Cyberlaw Clinic is really an efficient form of public interest lawyering. Earlier in the semester, we spent some class time trying to define “public interest law.” Of course, there's no clear answer, but for now I'm willing to assume that what we're doing is PI because we're not getting paid and we're representing the little guys.
While I very much enjoy our spyware research and find it a worthwhile cause (“God's work,” as our computer science experts put it), I wonder how it compares to more traditional legal services. Last week, I talked to a classmate in Stanford's Youth and Education clinic; he's managing three cases, and is “first-chairing” an upcoming hearing in Oakland. On the flip side, it's quite possible that our spyware case won't be finished when I graduate.
Trade-offs abound in litigation, I suppose. If we succeed with our project, we'll create a broader, more lasting influence on software, privacy, and online information gathering. But I wonder how public this interest is. The simple fact that it will affect many netizens worldwide doesn't render it a public cause. If we fail, nothing cataclysmic happens - PC users will just have to close a few more pop-ups and exercise care with their credit cards online. Heck, I'm a Mac user - what do I care?
Okay, I promise that next time I will write about substantive legal matters and include a bunch of links to cases, news stories, and spiffy online technologies.